“One of our doctors is treating a 5-year-old boy.
Militia have just raped his two sisters.
Then clubbed his parents to death.
We can’t operate without your help.
Visit msf.org.uk”
Heartbreaking video with bad copy. The call to action doesn’t have any connection with the rape and murder. But who cares, every viewer understands immediate help is necessary.
Update: MSF UK loves to read your comments about this advert. Does it work for you? How does it make you feel? You can give your comment here on Osocio or on this page at the MSF website.
Advertiser: Médecins Sans Frontières UK Agency: McCann Erickson London, UK Additional credits:
Creative Directors: Brian Fraser, Simon Learman, Matt Crabtree, Simon Hepton
Art Director: Simon Hepton
Copywriter: Matt Crabtree
Photographer: Robert Wilson
Production company: McCann Erickson/Framestore/Eardrum
Media: Phil Tattersall, Alice Pott
Hey Marc, thanks for the post. My name is Pete and I am the web editor here at MSF UK. Really interesting reading your response to the cinema ad - the feedback we have had has been so mixed.
Do you mind if I just say that we are really keen to get feedback, so if any of your readers have an opinion they would like to share, I will monitor the comments section here or they can do so directly at http://bit.ly/bjXeF ...
Thanks again,
Pete
Posted by Pete Masters | 10-08-2009 14:12
Seems like a nice idea with lots of potential - but somehow doesn’t quite hit the mark. ‘We can’t operate without your help’ doesn’t work at all for me. Is it supposed to play on the two different meanings of ‘operate’?. Can imagine this working better if it had a ‘what would yo do?’ element like those Army recruitment ads do at the moment. I’m no expert mind you, so take this with a pinch of salt.
Posted by Ben | 12-08-2009 12:08
The overly sensationalistic style of this piece undermines what MSF can do. If MSF can’t stop the rape and murder, is it only a bandaid that MSF can apply? If MSF can do more with more resources, prove it. Donor ads should simplify solutions and take the focus off the complications of a population’s underlying needs.
Posted by Sarah | 12-08-2009 18:58
To be honest the only effect it has in me is to give up hope in the world ... and I’ve worked both in the media and in development.
MSF as an organization cannot compete with the misery and horror of the advert, which means the message that people will take away is that the world is f@c@@d NOT that MSF can save it. The negative completely outweighs the positive.
I wonder if MSF have considered the effect that advert might have on people? Anyone close to the edge who is suffering mental health problems, well this sort of thing can tip them over the edge?
My only guess is that you were hoping it would kick up a storm and therefore get you more publicity. Its cynical. Today I canceled my direct debit to MSF. I don’t want my money wasted on manipulative work like this.
Posted by msfdesserter | 12-08-2009 20:35
It’s difficult to comment properly on this without knowing what it aims to achieve.
If it achieves its objectives, it’s a good ad. If it doesn’t, it’s not.
What it looks like is a press ad made into a film. I think it will probably win a lot of support from awards juries but probably not from the public. In other words it’ll probably do McCann’s more good than MSF.
I’d love to be proved wrong though, especially as my dealings with MSF tell me they are an incredibly passionate and effective organisation.
R
Posted by Reuben | 12-08-2009 22:36
PS: ...just read the caption on the website ‘ It is our attempt to make a deliberate move away from traditional charity advertising which tends to focus on images of starving children’ which I find pretty fucking offensive.
a) because it’s not true
b) because it does a serious disservice to the agencies (like mine) which work hard for sparse remuneration (and very few awards) to raise millions of pounds for charities like MSF.
Posted by Reuben | 12-08-2009 22:41
I agree Reuben, and frankly its bizarre thing for MSF to write. Are they that stupid, because all they’ve tried to do is give people an image of a child suffering in an even more upsetting way than a photograph of a starving child (by using audio).
How much did they spend on this campaign? I think they should be transparent about that. If they actually do any good then all they need to do is send someone decent to capture that. Honestly I’m speechless.
One more thing, the public are going to hate them for putting this on the cinema on a Saturday night. It will just alienate them.
Posted by msfdesserter | 12-08-2009 23:08
apparently the ad was made for free and shown int he cinema’s for free. MSF say ‘ we hope that it encourages people to think about the situation of our patients and what, with their support, MSF can do to help.’
Totally disingenuous. If that’s what they want to do, why don’t they show us them helping someone ... putting someone’s life back together?
Posted by msfdesserter | 12-08-2009 23:35
Hi Pete from MSF again… I’d like to first reassure that we have not paid for any part of the making or showing of this ad. McCann have very generously done the creative work pro bono and we have also been offerred the ad space for free for a limited period in the cinemas.
On Reuben’s point about ‘moving away from traditional charity advertising’ I can only apologise. They’re my words and I never meant to jibe at other charities or agencies. The ad was a departure from what we have done traditionally as much as everyone else and, as such, there is always the possibility we get it wrong.
If it doesn’t hit the mark, then so be it. We have spent none of our donor’s money trying something new (an opportunity that occurs rarely) and learning from our failure can be more constructive than from our success. This is why all these comments, whether negative or positive, are immensely helpful and thank you for at least taking the time to give your opinions.
msfdesserter, I’m sorry you have cancelled your direct debit. We have tried to be as transparent as possible with this ad. If you want any more information on how funds are spent by MSF, please let me know and I will point you in the right direction.
Thanks again,
Pete
Posted by Pete Masters | 13-08-2009 10:56
Thanks for the response Pete. It’s certainly polarising!
Posted by Reuben | 13-08-2009 11:10
I quite liked it actually. I don’t think you’re doing anything particularly new, you’re simply presenting the same image using audio and text rather than images. I think the main thing that puts off audiences is the sad music that usually goes with charity adverts- its ubiquity has made it seem cliched, so using a slightly different approach will hopefully grab attention.
On the other hand, I think all these kinds of adverts feel like manipulation and people are savvy to that these days. People don’t know very much about MSF’s work so perhaps something a bit more informative would be better.
Posted by Eric Randolph | 13-08-2009 11:30
Its not the funds, its the fact that you exploited the suffering of a little boy to promote your own individual charity, as opposed to a wider humanitarian message.
This is not a message about change but a cynical attempt to exploit peoples emotions to bolster your cash reserves.
You know and I know all the money thrown at MSF can’t change the problems. You could be using the ad space to promote real solutions, changing the way that people think and feel about the world.
Its a shame cause MSF are a great org but you crossed a line.
Posted by msfdesserter | 13-08-2009 12:42
RE: msfdesserter
Fair enough… We’ll have to agree to disagree - I think this is less expolitative of the child than if he was pictured. The suffering is sadly typical of what our staff see on a daily basis in some places. You can say it is cynical, but you can also say that it is honest.
Whatever way, I appreciate you taking time to discuss it. Perhaps you would like to take a look here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMhrZZqhmQ - an older ad from MSF with a COMPLETELY different feel. Would be interested to know what you thought…
Posted by Pete Masters | 13-08-2009 12:54
I think you have underestimated the power of sound to impart a different interpretation from the desired meaning. I agree with the idea that it doesn’t directly exploit anyone, except perhaps the viewer, as we see no explicit connection between the scene or the narrative and the characters. However, it is far too diegetic and there is not enough mimesis.
Unfortunately the audio scene leaves too much to the imagination. There is nothing to tie it to the visuals save for the inference of your text. It clearly sounds internal to the building, but your visual point of view is external. The location sound, gunfire, vehicles etc, reinforces that the observer (camera) is external to the building. So what ties the sound of the boy to the location is your text, but the viewer/listener will have already established one or more scenarios in their own minds. Your text is too slow, especially as there are no other visual clues that might solidify the sound to your narrative.
This is an unusual scenario as usually it’s the other way round, i.e. sound re-inforces the visual in the mind of the audience.
It is powerful but i think it needs more visual connection to establish the visceral. Sadly, as real as the scenario is, the ad is perhaps not real enough.
Except
Your audience’s experience of sound and visual tie-ups is much more sophisticated than perhaps you suspected.
Posted by say it with sound | 13-08-2009 14:07
I think you need to see the advert in context to judge it. The fact that its provoking strong reactions is good. Its a brave advert.
I agree with Pete, it is both real and honest ... but maybe too much so. As a father with boys I find the sound very disturbing and its hard for me to get beyond that.
The reality on the ground is shocking. No doubt.
Posted by duckrabbitblog | 13-08-2009 14:37
OK OK OK OK OK OK ... I’ve calmed down!
This advert really got to me (obviously). It works, though I’d be surprised if it would get through the censors here in Ireland. On reflection I appreciate you trying to do something different. I just feel there is so much darkness in the world I don’t need you putting it in my face whilst I’m having me popcorn, lucky as I am.
Respect for MSF for having the debate and responding to the comments ... that doesn’t happen very often.
Posted by msfdesserternomore | 13-08-2009 15:08
RE: msfdesserternomore
I completely agree about the darkness and, on a personal level, I’m not sure that this is the way I would have an NGO I support communicate with me - I struggle with my feelings when I hear that crying… However, i am just one person and how it goes down amongst the wider public is what counts I guess. It’s the reason it’s so nice to be able to chat to people about it. So often i find myself making a decision on our online stuff (I am the web editor) based on my thoughts alone - this sort of feedback really gives me food for thought and hopefully makes our communications all the more effective. Thanks again msfdesserternomore (and everyone else who has commented)..
Posted by Pete Masters | 13-08-2009 15:20
RE: say it with sound
Really interesting point (especially after I looked up definitions of diegesis and mimesis ;-)
I will forward this on to McCann Erickson, the agency who made the ad - I’m sure they will be interested to read your comment.
I really want to see this on the big screen as it was intended (although I imagine the sound would be extremely intense) - I even went to the cinema on monday, but got the wrong film!
Posted by Pete Masters | 13-08-2009 15:30
re MSFdesserter
Thank you so much for your comments, your passion for people in unimaginable difficulty and, not least, for your support. I work for MSF as both a nurse and a fundraiser - an unusual situation but a really privileged one. I get the chance to meet and treat the people YOU have provided for AND to thank you and explain our work a little bit.
Charities are often accused of being no more than a band aid, a drop in the ocean or money-guzzling do-gooders. My experience of MSF leads me to refute that entirely. The degree and extent of suffering that I saw this year in the Democratic Republic of Congo shocked me to the core. I will never forget it. I will never understand how or why it is that way. One thing I know, and one thing I want you to know - I did not not treat one single patient who would not shake you by the hand and thank you with all they had in them, if only they could. You’re right - they have nothing and there is no magic solution. MSF has never claimed to try to save the world, just to save lives. And we do. We lose some patients too - but that’s medicine and that’s life. But we try - we really do try to do our best and people appreciate it, believe me! It’s an amazing thing to see a parent’s relief when you tell them their child will make it.
It is when you have nothing, including hope, that even a band aid becomes the greatest gift imaginable. A couple of quid saves a child dying from diarrhoea. I’m not being dramatic. They really would die without treatment. Please take it from me - that is not a cheesy line. I treated 80 such children a day. Which means your ‘couple of quid’, or our ‘band aid’ actually stops the world being a grimmer, bleaker, more desolate place and brings a very real hope and joy to each and every family concerned.
Since I got back I’ve been wondering if it’s worth it - worth the trauma to my own head processing everything I saw, worth the risk I put myself in with guns everywhere etc. And I concluded that I’m being self-indulgent. Of course it is worth it. I, like you, have a ‘lucky life’ and part of that luck is being able to help others. So please, give yourself a break - you’re doing a great thing supporting MSF, even if it’s only in spirit not with your money, because you’re also supporting the idea that to do something is better than nothing, to save one life is better than losing them all and to grapple with misery and feel bad is better than leaving others to get through it on their own.
Thanks for being part of our team! I mean it!
Posted by Fiona Bass | 13-08-2009 15:57
Dear Fiona, now your comments mean something ... they are passionate, positive and weighed with the burden of what you experienced.
You do make an assumption though, that I am not aware of the kinds of conditions that you work in. I have been there and worked in such conditions. I have seen what man can do to man, I have been a witness to that. And I know how hard it was for me to adjust back to life in Ireland, just as it must be to you in the UK.
There is an arrogance though, an argument that says we need to give people the horror to understand, we need to place the screaming voice of a little suffering boy, traumatized by unimaginable loss; to place that in people’s heads to get them to understand, which of course they can’t and neither can you or I, which is why we struggle with our experiences. The futility, the loss.
If you could see all the other children in the world that died without love whilst you were saving one you might start to believe that our best energies are put into finding political situations to these crisis. Whilst this in no way negates the important work you do, ultimately it will do nothing to stop the suffering. There is a futility in patching people up to go on living miserable lives, there has to be a better way that will bring equality to more, a better use of resources.
One final thought. There is great debate about the idea that we are becoming desensitised to suffering. I do not believe that for one second, the human reaction to suffering, of which you are powerless to stop, is to turn away, to block it out, or to become numbed. That is the natural reaction, and that’s why I believe this advert is possibly detrimental to MSF.
I don’t want people to have to share my, your or anyone’s pain to feel they can make a difference in the world. I want them to give to MSF because good people like you work there and because they know it will make a difference ... not because they are disturbed and carry the suffering of a child in their mind. That boys suffering is part of a much wider story, do we not owe it to him that his story be heard in context? Where should our loyalties lie, to the boy or to MSF?
However well intentioned I do not believe it is the right thing to force that boys suffering on to people, stripped of context and stripped of ways forward out of the hell that accounts for so much of this world.
Posted by msfdesserternomore | 13-08-2009 18:15
I don’t get it!! Why is the boy crying? Because of his lost? Because of the bad performing of the doctors while operating? How can I help the boy? What is MSF asking my money for, regarding this boy? Am I going to help him to stop crying? Because that’s all I want when I hear this creepy ad. And MSF knows it and for that is using this type of biased ad, instead of a laughing boy who has been already helped by then.
And what is the ad trying to say? That giving money to MSF we are going to stop rapes, murders and suffering in general? The video is called Boy but let’s face it, the boy is the least important thing in it. His sisters, his parents, the drama situation countries in war are living are the main messages from this video, the boy is just crying, hammering our ears and telling us, stop my crying, give money to MSF!!!
I follow and admire MSF but this time they got it wrong and the agency working for them as well. This kind of communication does no good to anyone.
Posted by sideways | 13-08-2009 19:40
I really like the campaign but it takes to long to get the big pitchure! You need to show people in the first 2 -4 sec. what you need to tell them.
“show this little boy with his baby sister. She is crying! He gives her food, gets wood, cleans the house and he is also coughing. Outside you show the ground with 2 crosses, his dead parents!
At the end you say “he has malaria”! What a bout the little baby who is crying! We really need your help!
Posted by menno beker | 14-08-2009 09:28
The video diverts the attention to more emotive problems than whatever medical problem the boy has. Where are these murdering rapists now? Will they be back? Is anyone going to bring them to justice? What is the point in treating the symptoms if the disease is allowed to continue to spread? This video invokes anger and contempt for the people standing by and allowing this to happen. This video makes me support all those western military interventions into failed states.
Posted by David | 15-08-2009 14:11
I found the advert really disturbing and not in a good way. I understand the move to go away from representing starving children, but faceless crying victims of violence are even more dehumanizing. This makes the recipient of aid more even generic, I think that this retracts from the level of discourse that each recipient of aid deserves.
It plays into stereotypes of a violent desolate Africa/Asia, which may be what MSF witnesses a lot of the time, but can in itself do violence to the way we perceive the Other is perceived.
The Other: in need of us, living in a wasteland, violent, with no respect for children or women.
Us: The solution, would never abuse our children, our women, only want to help.
I value the work of MSF, I worked for the organization for 2 and 1/2 years yet this ad is invasive and manipulative. It simplifies complex situations for shock value. The use of the word “clubbing” is not far from the seal clubbing ads which were used by environmentalists to generate outrage yet did nothing to further the debate about arctic environmental issues.
I have seen a number of ads like this in the UK which show reoccuring scenes of domestic violence and they are very ineffective and just another level of charity manipulation to generate funds, while not really thinking about the best way to get a message out about these issues in way that will actually change the recipient of aid.
I understand it is a cinema ad and therefore there is not much time to explain the context, but I think that this violent shock tactic is even more violating and disrespectful to the people that MSF works for than if you were to show the classic starving face.
Posted by S D | 18-08-2009 23:23
Fascinating discussion. This is the focus on my research at the moment and so thank you for giving me so much material to chew on. As for the ad, I have nothing specific to ad. However, a couple of points of my own based on NGO’s use of visual media in their campaigns;
1 - Happy vs. Sad - which do we show? The answers has to be both and all the bits in between. Extremes never tell the whole complex story. However, it is difficult for one comms product to transmit much info so we should judge such things as part of MSF’s (or other’s) broad comms mix. What is required is an approach that ensures a diverse range of visual communication tools that appeals to what the audience knows, but also helps educate them in more depth. NGOs are not very good at this at the moment.
2 - Emotional manipulation - interesting that ‘the truth’ and the positive side of MSF’s work is not characterised as emotional manipulation, but the sharp end of the violation is? Is showing a smiling kid who benefited from their work less manipulative than the crying kid (or more representative)? Or does it just make us feel better? If we understand that we are being manipulated then the manipulation is on its way to failing (although we may feel bad), and this so-called manipulation focusses on guilt / pity (which is surely a last resort motivator?). This is an on-going debate since the ‘picturing famine’ discussions of the 90’s - seems that the answer is ads should be smart not shocking. But lets not get into a discussion about the ‘truth’!
3 - ‘Truth vs. PR’ - OK, I lied. But it is worth touching on. Interesting that many photo-journalists who have commented on this ad talk about a solution via their medium and ethics, yet history tells us that they have been just as guilty of stereotyping Africa. We should not confuse ‘focus’ with ‘truth’ - it is legitimate to highlight one specific issue (even if it is not representative) - however, ‘focus’ should not be an excuse for stereotyping or manipulating the facts. Horses for courses - a fund raising ad is one type of comms and a photo-documentary multi-media piece is another.
4 - NGOs not open to communicating - fascinating to hear Pete say he makes decisions on communicating with 1000s of people everyday but doesn’t talk to them. This is a problem for NGOs, photo-journalists and academics working on or with visual media in social activism. There is too much presumption about their audience, and not enough involvement with the subjects / rights claimants. NGOs could learn a lot from advertising agencies on knowing their audience. However, on another level I disagree that NGOs don’t communicate - many are democratic organisations with a large membership base who inform their work, plus have public events where materials are distributed and so can stimulate feedback.
5 - Beneficiaries telling stories - yes, definitely more of this. And it will happen. I have just come from a community video training event in India, where young men and women from marginalised communities are running their own video production units. Mixing this, and other participatory approaches with professional products will probably work best.
6 - What is being sold? NGOs or what they do? NGOs are professional organisations - they don’t collect money by rattling tins any more - and whether we like it or not it is a competitive sector where they need to fight for scarce funds. As such it pays to invest in advertising. NGO advertising is being highly influenced by advertising agencies because the agencies are doing pro-bono work for them. They look slick and it is easy to be sucked in by this - I worked on a global campaign where I had to manage the risk of 50 offices world wide producing ads that could damage our campaign. Despite a well developed communication strategy some offices produced totally inappropriate material. In the majority of cases an ad agency was involved. But it is the NGO’s responsibility to manage their relationship with them. Agencies are used to selling products so beware of those with not much experience in social campaigns. However, I believe that the agencies influence and expertise is on the whole valuable.
And lastly, more of this kind of debate - it is invaluable. Glad to have found Osocio.
Rob
Posted by Rob Godden | 24-08-2009 14:01
I can’t put in words what I feel about this campaign. Having worked with MSF, I think that over-exposing sufferance in order to advertise the NGO is something that has never been done before. The advertisement lacks action and should put emphasis on MSF’s action and missions instead of spending a whole minute on a particular case. The goal must have been to touch people, lead them to visit the website, and ultimately donating for the organization. Facts, actions and a clear mission are three things missing in this campaign.
Posted by Roni Deli | 24-08-2009 23:43
Agree with many of the thoughtful critiques. May win the ad firm more awards than funds forMSF. Negative images do not have the same impact as positive ones. Better to show that all is not hopeless. MSF may treat the physical wounds of this crying child but they leave all too soon and the long road of emotional rehabilitation is left to others.
Posted by Marie | 28-08-2009 16:23
I liked it. And this is why...2 years ago MSF came through Chicago with their refugee camp. Nothing I had ever read or seen in the media hit me as hard as that camp. I took my children (then 5, 9 and 10) and they still talk about the experience. Now when they see something on TV they have a better sense of what is happening out there. I thought this ad was effective in the same way. Also, I don’t find the child crying exploitative. He sounded like what a child sounds like when they are at the doctor or the hospital. It was obvious he was getting the help he needed. And yes if I wasn’t already giving to MSF (that was a result of the camp) this ad would motivate me to give.
Posted by Maria | 28-08-2009 21:19
As the mother of two boys, this ad makes me want to respond in any way I can. Rather than demotivating me, it made me feel grateful that someone is there for this boy who has just lost his parents and apparently has been injured himself. It’s so easy for people of privilege such as myself to go through our days forgetting about the great need in the world. This ad puts me right outside the doorway of a very real child who is suffering. Yes, it’s uncomfortable, but my life of comfort needs to be made a bit more uncomfortable sometimes.
Posted by Jeannette | 28-08-2009 21:38
I worked for MSF in 2001 in Ethiopia and 2002 in South Sudan. I have spent the rest of the time up until now as an aid worker. I am still a member of MSF. I have a couple questions for Steve:
1) Was the audio edited in any way? I her staccato gunfire from what sounds like a heavy weapon. Was that added? Or, are they still on the front line?
I hear water and a medical instrument hitting metal. The child is having a bullet or shrapnel removed? Are they suturing?
Reading the text and listening to the child’s first cry of “mama mama” makes me think that he is crying for his family. If the above is true it may be that he is crying because of the procedure.
As a father of a young boy I found it incredibly difficult to listen past a few seconds. However, I finished it and then made myself listen again to identify the sounds. Please clarify if all the audio is original.
2) Is the house pictured the actual location where the care is being given? I don’t see MSF vehicles or any indication that this is a medical facility. If there is nearby fighting policy usually dictates that staff and structures are clearly marked to prevent endangering staff and those we treat. Was this a mobile medical unit?
3) Is all the text accurate and true? The statements shown are actual fact? All those things actually happened to the boy and his family?
4) Why is someone recording the child crying?
5) Have you, Steve, ever worked in the field in a similar environment? If you are going to defend/explain this piece I hope that you have.
6) MSF used to have a policy that images would not be shown of suffering individuals without evidence of an MSF staff member providing aid. Is MSF still abiding by those rules? I am not sure if this advertisement adheres to those principles.
If any of the pieces of this ad have been doctored then I am appalled because you are manipulating your viewers and our supporters with dishonesty and I believe that would be a new low for MSF. If that is the case I sincerely hope you explain, apologize and/or pull the video.
One of the things that has always help MSF win support is the stark realism of the black and white photos that populate all of the literature and websites. They show exactly what is happening and exactly what we went/go through out in the field. Even then I often felt the images were exploitive.
The biggest problem I have with the video is what you don’t show what happens next. We walk in, put our arm around the child and try to comfort him. I have done that many times. That is the only thing that makes it possible to keep going back. That power is one of the strongest forces I have ever felt. Without it, our work is damn near impossible.
You don’t give the audience that ability. You leave them feeling powerless. You drain them. I have been drained so many times I have lost count but the fact that I can always make a difference is what keeps me coming back. It is what has made it all worthwhile.
I understand that is what you are trying to do - you want them to act - but is it really necessary? If you have manipulated the content of the video you have cheapened a child’s suffering and done a disservice to those of us who have spent our lives in the field. You have betrayed our trust that HQ would do right by us if we went out there and put our asses on the line.
Please answer the above questions. If the video has not been doctored then I have a whole other set of questions for you. If it has...well, then I think you know what my response will be.
Please also answer as to why this is not being shown in the US market and if it will be shown and discussed at the AG.
Thanks,
Jon
Posted by Jon | 28-08-2009 22:29
I am mystified by so many of these comments.
This is a short, highly emotional and impactive ad that seeks to persuade current donors to give, and for non-donors to think. Most have access to the web—more information about MSF is a click away. All donors know that and believe me, they don’t mind doing their research.
Facts? A child is in pain. MSF is there.
Action? MSF needs your help because none of ithis medical intervention happens without financial support.
Clear message?—War is Hell. MSF are angels.
Quibble about inter-organizational process and messaging if one must. As a fundraising professional and a MSF (DWB) donor: I see nothing wrong with this ad. Hope it brings in much money. They will soon see more of mine.
Posted by Jane Lindberg | 28-08-2009 22:41
I incorrectly addressed my post to ‘Steve’ when the intended recipient was Pete Masters.
Pete - Please take the time to respond to the questions I posted in my previous comment.
Thanks,
Jon
Posted by Jon | 29-08-2009 19:37
The new MSF spot strikes me as played-out and probably ineffective. I’d be curious t
Posted by Chris Murphy | 29-08-2009 22:44
The new MSF spot strikes me as played-out and probably ineffective. I’d be curious to see the strategy behind this ad. It uses a pretty standard formula for advocacy communications that has arguably run its course. In a national study of US voters conducted last year we showed that the traditional framework for advocacy campaigns (like this one from MSF) is no longer working. The narrative needs to be advanced from one of problems and despair to one of progress and optimism. The challenge for global health advocacy is no longer problem recognition, most people are generally aware of the problems of the developing world. Piling more on will do little to engage the uninvolved. Today’s challenge for global health advocacy is accountability. Our research proved that the primary reason people are resistant to support foreign aid is because they do not trust that the aid provided is reaching the people it’s intended for. And if it does reach them, they want to know what lasting effect our generosity has provided. Campaigns like the one from MSF do little to address this issue. Thus, it’s likely they’re only preaching to the converted (which may have been their aim). But to effectively reach uninvolved audiences, advocacy campaigns need to emphasize the progress underway and demonstrate how our global health investments are creating a self-sustaining society not a culture of dependency. If interested, you can read more here: http://bit.ly/mFtZK
Posted by Chris Murphy | 29-08-2009 22:53
Cheap and faked. No wonder comments on the MSF website article were disabled....
All-
As it seems there will be no response from MSF I have decided to continue the discussion on my own blog, Aid Worker Daily. Please feel free to join the discussion and review my post titled, MSF UK - Your Silence Is Deafening http://bit.ly/12iMjG
Cheers,
Jon
Posted by Jon | 1-09-2009 00:50
Hi Jon, sorry to get to this so late. As I explained on your blog I have been away without internet connection for a long weekend.
To answer your first three questions, the audio is not real to that situation, nor is the house pictured the actual place where the care is being given. The advert has been ‘made’ by the ad agency. The text has also been added and presents a situation - it is not fact. You say [and excuse my paraphrasing] “if the video has been doctored, then I think you know what my response will be” and yes, I think I can guess. I want to tell you that I think what you have written is valid - you share that opinion with many others who have commented on this ad and on some points I agree with you. I have been honest about my opinion of the ad.
However, I do not think that there is dishonesty in the ad. It doesn’t pretend to be a situation that is happening in front of a viewers eyes - it represents a situation that is not unheard of in MSF’s work. These kinds of situations present themselves to our staff in the field as I’m sure you know. I have never been a field worker, but I do work for MSF and hear about and read about situations as awful as this. My biggest problem with the ad is your biggest problem. The situation is unimaginably horrible and then the ad ends. It doesn’t show what happens next and the ‘what happens next’ is the reason I work for MSF and the reason I supported them for years before.
I know the responses here are not going to be what you want to hear, but I hope they answer your questions. Please do realise that ‘defending/explaining’ this ad is not part of my job. The debate was already happening before I got there - I wanted to contribute, so I did. I don’t really understand why I need to have field experience to do so.
I’m also not sure if the ad will be used in the US, but I hope that the debate we have seen will inform any decisions that are taken. I can promise you that the opinions of everyone who has taken part so far have been brought to the attention of MSF UK staff and McCann who made the ad. This is why I linked Osocio from the MSF UK web site (which doesn’t have the functionality to field comments on content) - so that anyone can see and contribute.
Posted by Pete Masters | 1-09-2009 11:49
Pete, I say the following with kindness:
NGO’s should come to specialized companies who focus on non-profits, like See 3 Communications in the U.S. We work only with non-profits/NGOs and we have done extensive research about what does and does not work in using media to raise funds/awareness/membership. It’s very different than traditional marketing.
This ad, for example, does not work because it is too extreme. The call to action is vague if non-existent. It facilitates a sense of hopelessness vs. a feeling that I, as a donor, can make a difference. It’s a thrill to make media that is so provocative, but the reason it’s “a departure”, as you say, is because it doesn’t work. Those of us in the NGO marketing industry already know that.
People want to feel that they can make a difference. One of the most successful fundraising campaigns in the U.S. is for St. Jude’s Children’s Research hospital. Some would call the ads exploitative, but frankly, they are one of the most successful fundraisers from small and large donors alike, in the U.S. The reason for their success is that they give people hope, and show how their money makes a difference in a child’s life.
I understand the urge to break the formula, Pete, but there are other ways. One thing you can NEVER do, is have a weak call to action. You must give viewers something to do RIGHT AWAY. How many people are really going to visit the web site after the cinema?
Anyway, just some friendly advice from a Non-Profit Marketing pro. :)
Posted by Kelly Luchtman | 1-09-2009 17:30
This video is an example of a common mistake that many fundraisers make. They tell the story of a service recipient, but they concentrate on the person’s problems while forgetting to explain how their organization helped the person overcome those problems. I think people inside an organization are often too close to the situation. What they do everyday is obvious to them, but they forget it’s not obvious to the audience. How your organization helps your clients should be the main part of every appeal message.
http://www.fundraisingassets.com/blog/?p=114
Posted by Connie Oswald Stofko | 1-09-2009 21:57
Pete-
I received your response and I am working on a reply. Please bear with me as I have to pare it down a bit.
Thanks,
Jon
Posted by Jon | 2-09-2009 00:14
This is a response to Kelly’s post - firstly, I would be very interested in seeing your research if it is public. I am currently looking at visual communications in social activism and one of the obvious knowledge gaps on the part of NGOs is that they often do not know their audience. I have talked to both activists and academics and found there is a lack of such research looking at target audiences. My assumption is that ad agencies know more about communications than NGOs and may be able to fill this gap. I would love to talk to you more about this.
I would question your statement that ‘the ad does not work’ - firstly, the responses to the ad on-line have predominantly been from those working in the non-profit sector, rather than a representative sample of its intended audience. On-line forums tend to generate a minority of extreme responses. I doubt most people would feel this way - however, the point is we don’t know and so should not assume the ad is a success / failure. Also, the ads objective remains unclear to me - it doesn’t appear to be a straight fund raiser (from what Peter says) or a call to action for a specific campaign. It has to be judge on what it was meant to achieve. As such I agree with your comment that the call to action is vague. To me this is the biggest failing of the ad.
I would also say that what works in the US in regards to fund raising or mobilization is not the same in say, the Czech Republic. I have worked for an INGO for ten years and in that time have worked with activists all over the world - we continually battle with devising communication strategies that are both unified but flexible enough to adapt to cultural and social specifics. What works in one place does not necessarily work in another. I agree however that you do need to show that an individual’s involvement can make a difference - not ‘compassion fatigue’ but ‘solution need’.
I have argued on my own blog that you must provide a call to action and provide the mechanisms for people to take action. This has mainly be in regard to photographic exhibitions. What do you suggest for a cinema ad? I think that some people will log on to the MSF site in the days following seeing the ad, but maybe this isn’t the best way to capture your audiences interest? Do you want someone outside handing out postcards / donor forms? A cinema ad has its own restrictions and I am not sure this is a criticism of the MSF ad but of the format.
Thanks for your comment. It seems we’re mostly in agreement.
Firstly, my research is really based on having worked directly in this arena for years. See 3 is one of the leaders in the US in interactive marketing for non-profits and social causes. So we’ve thrown a lot at the wall, so to speak, and we know what sticks.
You bring up a salient point about the international arena. Admittedly, we have not worked on much at an international level, so I cannot speak to that. I think what you are saying is right, however, especially based on what I know of traditional marketing.
The audience is key. It’s our first questions to clients-who are talking to? What EXACTLY do you want them to do? We also stress that you cannot appeal to every audience with a single ad, or even campaign.
We agree totally about the call to action. You bring up a good point about the cinema. My answer is that I would not have a cinema ad, especially like that one. Can you imagine being on a date, happy and laughing and ready to see a movie and THAT comes on? What an affront. It’s likely to alienate people.
Shock value is usually the first concept that comes to a creative’s mind when he/she starts on a new project. “How can we get their attention?” And then it is usually summarily rejected, because of the, as you say, “compassion fatigue” vs. “solution need”.
You bring up excellent points, and if you’d like to talk more offline about this, you can find me at http://www.see3.net. Thanks!
Let’s start with the obvous. The ad is undoubtedly provocative, and raises a number of questions and strong viewpoints. I’ve been impressed by the weeks of commentary on yours and other blogsites. Some people think the ad is brilliant. Others find it manipulative and hypocritical. Not surprisingly, my opinion falls with the former. There seems to be a more consistently supportive opinion for our willingness to initiate and engage with this discussion (although, on that note, I believe this office must also be very careful to ensure that we devote our resources to our primary work—so please don’t expect me to become a regular discussant here). So kudos to all who have made it a rich discussion.
I find it difficult to add to the opinions already expressed by the different bloggers, or by our web editor and head of communications. My expertise lies far from fundraising, communication or this cyber-world of news, so I’ve found the voices on both sides of the fence enriching, and can assure you they help strengthen my thinking on these topics. For example, MSF has developed solid ethical guidelines for the use of visual images. The discussions of this ad raise interesting questions around the use of (unattributable) audio content.
The two points I’d like to make clear relate to the intention and objective of the ad. Many assert that we have misjudged matters, so readers should know that we thought hard about the content of the ad, asking ourselves the very same questions you’ve posed. The two most important for me are (1) whether it is manipulative of the viewer in an unfair way and (2) whether it is exploitative of the child? Certainly, there was no intention to be manipulative in a harmful way (sorry to phrase it thusly, but many people would argue that all advertising is manipulative). Obviously, opinions differ. We were trying to provoke the viewer’s feelings when confronted with the kind of human pain that exists all over the world, and is disturbingly widespread in the places MSF works. As for charges of exploitation, I see neither the content nor the process as exploitative. If I had, I would not have cleared it.
Secondly, a fairly common refrain among the critical voices is that the ad fails as a fundraising mechanism, that it fails to point the viewer towards a concrete course of action, leaving him or her mired in feelings of hopelessness or powerlessness. This aspect of the ad was and remains one of its chief appeals to me—the fact that it does not make a direct fundraising request or call to action. (We produce numerous adverts and fundraising appeals in our fundraising department, this ad was managed by the communications team.). This aspect is part of why we believe the ad to be a departure from typical non-profit advertising. My background in MSF is with our efforts to bear witness, to speak out about the suffering of people that confronts our medical teams on the ground. Now, as director of MSF-UK, part of me of course hopes that this ad brings in sacks of donations and raises the public’s awareness of the organization. The part of me that is more realist, though, is more concerned that this ad accomplishes its purpose of making viewers feel and think—jolting them for a few moments—about the hundreds of terrible worlds in which this anonymous child resides.
Finally, thank you (and others) for hosting and, to a decided extent, provoking this discussion of the ad. It has been educational.
Marc DuBois
Executive Director MSF UK
Posted by Marc DuBois | 3-09-2009 09:55
Marc: You asked the wrong questions. Ads by their very nature are exploitative of the viewer, and in the case of adverts like this they must necessarily exploit the viewed as well. You should have been asking whether the advert perpetuates a view of the world that divides into Them and Us, where They are helpless victims and We are their primary source of help. This is a lie, and more than that it is a dangerous lie that disempowers both the viewer and the viewed; the former becomes a large wallet sitting on a sofa, while the latter becomes a disembodied screen on their television screen. There is no sense that this advert contributes to a meaningful discussion about the causes of conflict, the role of MSF or - most worryingly - the real lives of people affected by war.
Posted by Paul C | 3-09-2009 19:16
I think the ad is very powerful. For better or worse, it stirs emotion in the viewer. It is certainly successful as a viral video. I received it in an email newsletter for non-profit marketing professionals in the US. It stands out from other ads I have seen for similar organizations and it made me want to do something to help.
I understand why people find it offensive, but what is really offensive are the attrocities committed to the boy and his family.
Posted by Christine | 4-09-2009 18:16
what do the rape and murder have to do with the surgical procedure? They seem gratuitous. The child needs surgery regardless. MSF can’t undo what’s already happened and talking about it in an ad won’t make it go away.
Your doctors are a key differentiator for you. They do positive things in negative situations. Why fall back on the negative territory and create victims where once you had heroes?
Posted by simon | 8-09-2009 12:43
Well, it stirs emotions for sure. Now that I’m done crying all over my keyboard, I can comment.
Working at an NGO, I know the negative is out there, I see it, I hear it, I feel it in my heart. But I’m able to get out of bed in the morning and go to work because of the hope I feel, and see in the people MSF and other NGOs like mine serve. That’s what I hope people take away. That the world is messed up and terrible things happen to people, but there is still hope out there. These people are not broken. They have hope, and faith and the will to survive and good people like MSF doctors and other aid workers are right there to help them.
That little boy will never be the same. He gets to carry that trauma with him the rest of his life. There’s something so hopeless in that. If the effect is to make people feel more miserable, then mission accomplished.
At least you got us thinking and discussing this issue. So bravo for that.
Posted by Sarah | 23-09-2009 20:40
I’m sorry – I really hate this ad. It led me to look at other MSF ads on youtube and they all have the same theme… White heroes/heroines working in Africa to save the dependent helpless incapables. (The homogeneous continent is identifiable by the generic depictions of war/desolation/misery).
I suppose it works in that the intention is to get people to put their hands in their pockets and maybe some would take the view that that is all that matters. I think there is more at stake though. The long term effects of the message that Africa is a war torn place dependent on white saviours does nothing but perpetuate stereotypes and ultimately keep things the way they are and have been for centuries. And it keeps organisations like MSF in business.
Osocio e-mail newsletter: highlighting the best social campaigns at Osocio, social advertising related news and field news from around the world.
You can now subscribe by entering your e-mail address here.
Osocio is dedicated to social advertising and non-profit campaigns. It’s the place where marketing and activism collide. Formerly known as the Houtlust Blog, Osocio is the central online hub for advertisers, ad agencies, grassroots, activists, social entrepreneurs, and good Samaritans from around the globe.
Print this article 
Twitter
Digg
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Facebook 
The Shrine Down the Hall
Follow Osocio at Twitter
